Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Mar 2008 21:49 UTC
Editorial "I used KDE as my primary desktop from 1996 through 2006, when I installed the GNOME version of Ubuntu and found that I liked it better than the KDE desktop I'd faced every morning for so many years. Last January, I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop and decided to install Kubuntu on it, but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?"
Permalink for comment 306203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by gustl on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

Then middle click + drag and stop whining.


Middle-clicking onto a file is unintuitive to anyone who uses the middle mouse button to paste something. It would feel subconsciously like "overwrite the file with whatever is currently in the buffer".
I know this is illogical, but to me it feels like that.
In Windows I often move stuff when I wanted to copy it, but I admit that the popup menu of KDE can be annoying.

For the dumbed-down configuration dialog and the gconf editor:

It is unproductive.
Why?
Because configuring Gnome to my liking takes approximately 3 times longer than configuring KDE to my liking.
In KDE I can walk through the whole configuration dialogue within approximately two hours. I will find every thing I want to configure on this walktrough.
In Gnome it is a 5 minute walk through the dialogue, then a 3 hour search for other dialogues or hidden configuration options, only to find out that there are none. Then it is a horrible search through the gconf editor guessing which keyword does what, trying to change, see if the right keyword was changed, finding out that it was not the right keyword, try others which might be the right ones, and after 5 minutes we have the first of 20 necessary changes.

KDE shows that it need not be like that.
For Gnome maybe one simple button labeled "Expose all options" and a config tree similar in size as KDE's appears, would solve this issue.

I can accept simple and clean interfaces for the applications themselves, I agree that for applications less is more, as long as whatever is left is enough, and possibilities to add what is missing are available.
But for configuration dialogues more is more, because people should not spend time learning how to correctly set things up in gconf. A configuration dialogue is rarely opened, usually once or twice. For rarely used stuff the "no learning required" paradigm of graphical user interfaces have their biggest advantage over the "it's fast when you already know what to do" paradigm of a command line interface.
I think the Gnome usability guys were wrong when they decided to make Gnome configuration complicated.

Reply Parent Score: 4